There was a Conspiracy to mislead US citizens into war with Afghanistan and Iraq

[I Ratant]

With respect to the thesis that all of this adds up to a conspiracy, I myself subscribe to the Dallas Police Theory (wrt to JFK and Oswald's murders):

"Never attribute to Malice what can be ascribed to Incompetence".

.
The reasons for the war were so transparently stupid, it appalled me that Colin Powell was sucked in and his reputation destroyed.
The sole person in W's cabinet that had any integrity at all.

 

[I Ratant]

Hmm. Well the OP did use paragraphs. So two points at least for that mercy.

.
It was still wtl;dr.

 

[Travis]

Because the 9/11 plans were made in Germany and because no Afghans were involved in the attack even if Bush would have managed to kill every single Taliban in an invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11 or excepted any one of the many Taliban offers to hand bin Laden over or even kill bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks would have STILL happened.

Al Qaeda never owed allegiance to any one country. That's why the nationality of the actual terrorists was always irrelevant.

But so many Americans have been misled that many believe that if the Taliban would have been exterminated before 9/11 the attack would never have happened and so now they want the Taliban annihilated because of the 9/11 attack that the Taliban had nothing to do with.

What do these hypothetical ignorant Americans have to do with this? It has always been well established that the Taliban harbored, reluctantly, Al Qaeda and that removing the Taliban from power was merely a means to the end of destroying the terrorist group.

This is because there was such a massive push to invade Afghanistan before and after 9/11 that was always about a much larger geo-political energy war more than it was about making the US safer by killing all the Taliban.

Now this is a claim. And one you have yet to support in any substantial way. I defy you to find one source that says the USA actually intended to invade Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks happened.

And the surge is even worse in its exploitation of 9/11 than the initial invasion was because in the initial invasion the Neocons were dumb enough to actually believe they had a chance for a new American century beginning in Afghanistan but Obama and the generals knew the war was lost but exploited the peoples belief that the extermination of the Taliban would have prevented 9/11 and so insisted that the surge could defeat the Taliban who many Americans believe helped attacked America on 9/11.

So Obama decided to use a troop surge in a lost war to appease some hypothetical subset of ignorant American voters?

But in reality the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and the surge had no chance of victory...

Really? If you know this then maybe we should get you in the Pentagon or at least on our national Risk Tournament squad.

...and only a small but considered worthwhile chance of convincing the Taliban that America will continue to fight for another ten years if they don’t settle on a payment for the security of the TAPI pipeline so the US can leave.

Or, you know, sit down at the table and help run a country in a grown up manner.

The mission in Afghanistan was never to help Afghan women.

Maybe not but it should have been one of the goals.

2. The mission in Afghanistan was never to decrease or eliminate poppy farming/heroin production.

Who said it was? You then give all sorts of evidence on the proliferation of poppy farming which is entirely irrelevant. You really need to stop with these tangents.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I’m just going to post a few articles that verify the Taliban were desperately trying to get rid of Bin Laden.

...
If you’re interested I have many, MANY, more links that verify that the Taliban wanted Bin Laden gone.

So you don't think that even though the Taliban's getting blasted out of existence, and they're still trying to deport their buddy Osama to a neutral country and not the USA, that means they're trying to protect him? You really don't see this? And you really don't see that the USA wants him deported to the USA and the Taliban won't do it? You really don't see this?

I once speculated that at least some conspiracy theory theory beliefs have their origin in reading problems. I don't think that's what's going on here. You may not know this, but I put every single conspiracy theorist on IGNORE and just completely have nothing to do with them. I think you're going on IGNORE.

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

Al Qaeda never owed allegiance to any one country. That's why the nationality of the actual terrorists was always irrelevant.

What do these hypothetical ignorant Americans have to do with this? It has always been well established that the Taliban harbored, reluctantly, Al Qaeda and that removing the Taliban from power was merely a means to the end of destroying the terrorist group.

Now this is a claim. And one you have yet to support in any substantial way. I defy you to find one source that says the USA actually intended to invade Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks happened.

So Obama decided to use a troop surge in a lost war to appease some hypothetical subset of ignorant American voters?

Really? If you know this then maybe we should get you in the Pentagon or at least on our national Risk Tournament squad.

Or, you know, sit down at the table and help run a country in a grown up manner.

Maybe not but it should have been one of the goals.

Who said it was? You then give all sorts of evidence on the proliferation of poppy farming which is entirely irrelevant. You really need to stop with these tangents.

Many people when realizing the original claim used to justify the war is false, (it was to get OBL) usually make desperate attempts to find another excuse to justify the war like Women’s rights, end poppy production, save the tooth fairy etc.

You seemed to be doing the same when you said; “You've also proven that the Taliban maybe didn't like him. But that is irrelevant. They were, after all, executing women in stadiums for daring to read books so what they thought of Osama is sort of hard to take as any bit of truth.”

So by your logic it’s hard to believe that the Karzai government does not secretly support OBL and al Qaeda because the Karzai government pushed a law supporting rape in marriage, and the only two rights women are guaranteed by the Constitution are the right to obey their husbands and the right to pray, but not in a mosque and “The fact is that life for women in Afghanistan has gotten worse since the Taliban were removed from power.” And because “Afghan women are confined to their homes to an even greater extent than under the Taliban.” And etc, etc, etc.

So naturally it seemed you were going to go to the next popular claim about poppy production and I just headed you off before you could go there.

Then you said; “I defy you to find one source that says the USA actually intended to invade Afghanistan before the 9/11 attacks happened.”

Ok but remember YOU asked for it:

Breach of rule 4 removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

So you don't think that even though the Taliban's getting blasted out of existence, and they're still trying to deport their buddy Osama to a neutral country and not the USA, that means they're trying to protect him? You really don't see this? And you really don't see that the USA wants him deported to the USA and the Taliban won't do it? You really don't see this?

I once speculated that at least some conspiracy theory theory beliefs have their origin in reading problems. I don't think that's what's going on here. You may not know this, but I put every single conspiracy theorist on IGNORE and just completely have nothing to do with them. I think you're going on IGNORE.

First, those links are for before 9/11 and second, after being bombed if the Taliban had given their then unwanted but only ally they would have NEVER been able to defeat the US like they now have and probably would have been liking our boots if they had.

Unfortunately the Taliban made the right choice after 9/11 when they realized they were damned if they do and slightly less damned if they don't.

Therefore history has made them the victor.

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

@Travis

Here is exactly what I’m talking about:

I said; “Because the 9/11 plans were made in Germany and because no Afghans were involved in the attack even if Bush would have managed to kill every single Taliban in an invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11 or excepted any one of the many Taliban offers to hand bin Laden over or even kill bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks would have STILL happened.”

And you said; “Al Qaeda never owed allegiance to any one country. That's why the nationality of the actual terrorists was always irrelevant.”

The cognitive dissonance will not allow you to distinguish the deference between Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Taliban are NOT Al Qaeda.

Please try to grasp the Fact that NONE of the Taliban were involved in the 9/11 attacks and because the 9/11 plans were made in Germany and because NO Taliban were involved in the attack. Even if Bush would have managed to kill every single Taliban in an invasion of Afghanistan before 9/11, the 9/11 attacks would have STILL happened.

That’s because NONE of the Taliban had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban are NOT Al Qaeda.

Should we attack Germany because Al Qaeda lived in Germany and the 9/11 plans were made in Germany and much of the logistics of 9/11 were coordinated in Germany?

Scholars and US government officials insist that the Talban is NOT Al Qaeda and the US government officials have repeatedly insisted that the Taliban is NOT our enemy? Even Biden has said the Taliban is not our enemy.

Do you actually believe that if the Taliban would have been exterminated before 9/11 the attack would never have happened? If not then what makes you think that if they are exterminated now it would make any difference?

 

[Inside Mob]

Don't worry, it's not a problem with you, it's a problem with the audience. Most aren't interested in educating themselves (and have a short attention span), they are here to ridicule conspiracy theorists. They'll find every excuse to do so, even if it is to complain someone provided too many sources because that's what conspiracy theorists do. Bam, see how that worked?

His posting style is entirely at fault here. I'm not that familiar with the pre-war situation of Afghanistan (the war happened very quickly and I have not gone back to read on it) but it is rather uncontroversial to think that at least in the case of Iraq the justifications for war had very little to do with the facts. This could be the case in Afghanistan too. I'm susceptible to the general idea but he is not helping his claim.

IF someone wants to be heard and persuade others it is not unreasonable to ask for a coherent argument. You can not use peoples unwillingness to cater to disjointed arguments as proof that we sheeple do not want to hear the truth.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Don't worry, it's not a problem with you, it's a problem with the audience. Most aren't interested in educating themselves (and have a short attention span), they are here to ridicule conspiracy theorists. They'll find every excuse to do so, even if it is to complain someone provided too many sources because that's what conspiracy theorists do. Bam, see how that worked?

Where is the pipeline mentioned in the OP?

Do you know where it is? I'd like to see it.

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

Where is the pipeline mentioned in the OP?

Do you know where it is? I'd like to see it.

Yea hahaha Where is the victory in Afghanistan? Where is the proof that the Bush administration actually planed to have a victory in Afghanistan? I would like to see it? Please show me the supposedly "planed" victory in Afghanistan.

If there is no victory in Afghanistan then I don't believe that there ever existed a plan for victory in Afghanistan and therefore the whole Afghan war is a fraud.

 

[Border Reiver]

Yea hahaha Where is the victory in Afghanistan? Where is the proof that the Bush administration actually planed to have a victory in Afghanistan? I would like to see it? Please show me the supposedly "planed" victory in Afghanistan.

If there is no victory in Afghanistan then I don't believe that there ever existed a plan for victory in Afghanistan and therefore the whole Afghan war is a fraud.

Lack of "victory" in Afghanistan means that NATO set unrealistic conditions and failed to achieve them, not that there was no plan.

 

[The Dark Lord]

tl;dr

 

[kookbreaker]

CK still seems to have a problem understanding that a military making plans for contingencies is not the same as a decision to take military action.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yea hahaha Where is the victory in Afghanistan? Where is the proof that the Bush administration actually planed to have a victory in Afghanistan? I would like to see it? Please show me the supposedly "planed" victory in Afghanistan.

If there is no victory in Afghanistan then I don't believe that there ever existed a plan for victory in Afghanistan and therefore the whole Afghan war is a fraud.

Right... so where is the pipeline again?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Yea hahaha Where is the victory in Afghanistan? Where is the proof that the Bush administration actually planed to have a victory in Afghanistan? I would like to see it? Please show me the supposedly "planed" victory in Afghanistan.

Your extraordinary claim that Bush & Co. never intended to win the war; your burden of proof to show that that's the case.

If there is no victory in Afghanistan then I don't believe that there ever existed a plan for victory in Afghanistan and therefore the whole Afghan war is a fraud.

So, by your logic, Napoleon and Hitler never really intended to conquer Russia, and LBJ never really intended to win in Vietnam.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So, by your logic, Napoleon and Hitler never really intended to conquer Russia, and LBJ never really intended to win in Vietnam.

And the Japanese intended to sacrifice their carriers at Midway for... something... resulting in the eventual loss of their empire and getting nuked.

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

Lack of "victory" in Afghanistan means that NATO set unrealistic conditions and failed to achieve them, not that there was no plan.

Lack of a "pipeline" in Afghanistan means that US set unrealistic conditions and failed to achieve them, not that there was no plan.

Just because the plan created out of hubris before 9/11 regarding a pipe line through Afghanistan failed miserably along with their war does NOT mean that such a plan was not made.

When a decision for military action is made it is based on at LEAST a dozen reasons which should out way (according to the "decider") the dozen reasons for not doing it.

Do you actually believe that the longest war in the history of the world’s currently GREATEST EMPIRE was to go after one man with no regard for any Geo-political interest or fall out?

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

Your extraordinary claim that Bush & Co. never intended to win the war; your burden of proof to show that that's the case.

So, by your logic, Napoleon and Hitler never really intended to conquer Russia, and LBJ never really intended to win in Vietnam.

Oh please, I was being sarcastic because Sword_Of_Truth is trying to imply that because the plan did not succeed there was never a plan which is absurd.

 

[kookbreaker]

Oh please, I was being sarcastic because Sword_Of_Truth is trying to imply that because the plan did not succeed there was never a plan which is absurd.

So when you said

Where is the proof that the Bush administration actually planed to have a victory in Afghanistan? I would like to see it? Please show me the supposedly "planed" victory in Afghanistan.

You either meant what you said, in which case you believe that Bush set things up to fail, or you are really, really, really, bad at sarcasm and probably shouldn't try it any more.

Either way we can see that when you get away from your C&P you get even worse at this debate thing.

 

[ConspiracyKiller]

Right... so where is the pipeline again?

No victory = unable to secure the pipeline route = no pipe line.

But year after year the U.S. (not just corporations) have been spending vast sums of money specifically, as stated by the US officials, for securing the TAPI pipe line.

The US as continued to throw money, as recently as May 2012, into the black hole known as the TAPI pipe line.